California is Burning (Again)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meadow Skipper

You're on to one of the major problems facing California (and other) forests. The fuel (brush and little reproduction trees) accumulation is so thick in some places that you can't really burn it in place without damaging the large trees that you want to save. But it can be cut, piled, and burned...for a lot of $$$, which doesn't seem to exist.

Crown fires need ground fuel and ladder fuel to make a sustained run. You can get flares up without those, but it won't go far without them.

But I think you're right in that we've reached a point of no return in some areas - there isn't the $$$ or political/social will to treat forests to return them to a pre-Columbian state. That, and some forests (like spruce, lodgepole, and chaparral) will always burn catastrophically - they aren't the type for those legendary mellow underburns. In fact, those legendary, mellow underburns are pretty much common only in Ponderosa/Jeffrey forests and some open savannah-types like piñon/juniper that gets burned on a fairly regular basis. Aspen stands, Douglas-fir stands, and spruce forests are generally the result of stand-replacement fires or some similar wide=spread disturbance. (I'm pre coffee right now, so I may be forgetting some critical issues/forest types)

Dr. Stepen Pyne, the eminent fire social scientist (very worth reading if you're interested) has been saying that we aren't going to "win the war" with fire, but that we're going to have to learn how to live with it. I think he's probably right.

---

That's very well-said/well-written as an explanation of the problem.

I spend a lot of time with people in the forest business, both commercial foresters and USDA Forest Service employees. Also spend a lot of time with folks committed to natural resource conservation. They all recognize the problem, how serious it is, how much it needs to be solved, how much could be gained by solving, and how politically impossible it is to solve it.

If we want to save the western forests in something like their current state, we need a truly massive federal and state program with huge resources to do so. This could be a new Works Progress Administration type effort, that could put millions of people to work. In doing it, we could find new products, new markets, new ways of living with and in our forests. But it would take the kind of money that is usually only spent on the DOD and elections.

The only thing I'd correct is the notion that the pre-columbian forest consisted largely of climax stage groves of large, widely spaced trees. There was certianly a lot of that, but a healthy forest, one not messed with too badly by man, exists in all stages simultaneously. It' snot that a paticular forest "should be" predominantly Ponderosa rather than Doug Fir. In the intermountain west, different species will often follow each other in different forest stages. Even a healthy forest sees an occasional hard burn, as well as other events that can fundamentally alter that stretch of forest.

But we won't see the kind of effort it will take to remediate 100s of millions of acres of western forestlands. So instead, we'll see massive fires, and in 50-100 years we will have very few forests where the typical tree is more than 50 years old. A few hundred billion dollars a year, is a fair estimate of what it will take to avoid this outcome. I don't see that happening in our political climate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strawjack

Alpine has their snowmaking guns lined up to..umm...put the fire out if it comes near.

---

Wait, really?

maybe we just need another gold/silver rush in the sierra w/ massive deforestation; essentially another "refresh".:FIREdevil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamespio

That's very well-said/well-written as an explanation of the problem....

...The only thing I'd correct is the notion that the pre-columbian forest consisted largely of climax stage groves of large, widely spaced trees. There was certianly a lot of that, but a healthy forest, one not messed with too badly by man, exists in all stages simultaneously. It' snot that a paticular forest "should be" predominantly Ponderosa rather than Doug Fir. In the intermountain west, different species will often follow each other in different forest stages. Even a healthy forest sees an occasional hard burn, as well as other events that can fundamentally alter that stretch of forest...

---

I don't disagree. When I wrote that I was headed out the door for work, and didn't have the time to go into the long rant that the topic usually induces in me. Lucky for all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by east or bust

Wait, really?

---

I was part of something like that in Sun Valley once. What was probably most effective was being able to stage and maintain big portable tanks all over the hill and run quick turnarounds with type 1 helicopters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by char

This is why I don't understand why we continue to put fires out in Wilderness Areas. Not only should these places be left alone, there is no way to treat them, and every year of firefighting there just makes the problem worse. So why in the hell are high risk operations to insert firefighters still occurring? Just enough political will to put out the big bad fire, but not enough to actually address the problems? And further, all that is occurring is pushing the catastrophic fire off to another day anyways despite the millions spent to put fires out. I understands that some wilderness is small, or watersheds are threatened, but it doesn't matter, some day it will burn and we are just making it worse.

Edit- I know this is changing in lots of places and California is an entirely different ball game wrt people, WUI and politics. Still gets me fired up though.

---

The problem is that in the past most (not all--see below) fires were relatively low intensity and spared the big trees. The ecology of our forests in fact depended on periodic fire. After over 100 years of fire suppression fuels have built up to the point that fires are much higher intensity, the big trees die, and there is severe erosion within the watersheds. So letting a fire burn after decades of suppression is not really a natural phenomenon. There certainly has been in the recent past more of a philosphy of letting some fires burn--the Yellowstone fire a few years ago was an example, and a very controversial one. I don't know what the current Forest Service thinking is (but whatever it is it will be different next year.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamespio

That's very well-said/well-written as an explanation of the problem.



The only thing I'd correct is the notion that the pre-columbian forest consisted largely of climax stage groves of large, widely spaced trees. There was certianly a lot of that, but a healthy forest, one not messed with too badly by man, exists in all stages simultaneously. It' snot that a paticular forest "should be" predominantly Ponderosa rather than Doug Fir. In the intermountain west, different species will often follow each other in different forest stages. Even a healthy forest sees an occasional hard burn, as well as other events that can fundamentally alter that stretch of forest.

---

No disagreement. I was over simplifying. As I understand it, a climax forest can take sometimes hundreds of years to be established after a severe burn, as the area goes through various stages. I agree 100% with the rest of your post as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

The problem is that in the past most (not all--see below) fires were relatively low intensity and spared the big trees. The ecology of our forests in fact depended on periodic fire. After over 100 years of fire suppression fuels have built up to the point that fires are much higher intensity, the big trees die, and there is severe erosion within the watersheds. So letting a fire burn after decades of suppression is not really a natural phenomenon. There certainly has been in the recent past more of a philosphy of letting some fires burn--the Yellowstone fire a few years ago was an example, and a very controversial one. I don't know what the current Forest Service thinking is (but whatever it is it will be different next year.)

---

Former Wildland Firefighter here, well aware of the history of fire suppression and I've spent my fair share of time putting out fires that could have been let burn. Sorry I didn't make that clear. I was never a big wig like Meadow Skipper, but I know at his level things get very political.

I think the larger point is that even if you had put out every fire in Yellowstone in 1988 or only one had gotten big, it is all going to burn. It's just a matter of time. We naively think that we can continue to suppress fires and some how get to a place where the watersheds aren't going to burn?

Newsflash: they are going to burn.

This summer a 60,000 acre fire burned over half a dozen fires I had a hand in putting out over the past decade. And it did it with a pretty high intensity. The days I was successful? Low intensity, easy living, low mortality, etc.

The fires that are nuking out watersheds are unstoppable. Period. They burn on days where no amount of manpower, airpower or money is going to stop them. It's pissing in the wind. The King fire was IA'd at 2 acres and burned 4k the first day, then in the next 3 it burned 67,000. This with a "world record amount of retardant" thrown at it and a HUGE response from the machine that is the California Wildland Firefighter force. The difference is that the King fire was directly threatening communities.

Yet the same thing happens in the wilderness, where there are no houses and the access is crap. Yet we continue to drop dudes out of the sky on silk so we can just continue the cycle.

I still don't understand the current strategy. Until there is a strategy, we will see more high intensity fires like the King fire burning shit up. Like James noted, it will take money and political will to make it happen.

A stiff little breeze through Reno this afternoon.
Made me wonder if it hit the ridge tops harder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bodywhomper

Mike, I'm pulling my air quality maps from yubanet

---

Best source I've found for keeping current on readings: http://aqicn.org/city/california/nev...-fire-station/

wow so smoggy in boulder today from the fires


vibes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by east or bust

Wait, really?

---

Yeah. Water, pumps, water lines...why not try.

Sitting here having coffee in walnut creek, rain couldnt have come any sooner. Hope it bats it down some as it looked pretty hairy from the plane in what seemed like inches from the lake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Dad

Best source I've found for keeping current on readings: http://aqicn.org/city/california/nev...-fire-station/

---

Thanks. We shut down our project for a few days. Too smokey and a bit of rain coming so good time to take a few days off.

Fighting fire these days seems like Obama dealing with ISIS and the fallout from the invasion of Iraq. We broke it, now, however, reluctantly, we are responsible for it In the case of wildfire, after 100 years of suppression and allowing lots of houses in the middle of the woods, letting it burn is no longer an option, unless it is proceeded by massive efforts of fuel reduction. In the Wilderness, the situation is complicated by the lack of roads, which makes fuel reduction virtually impossible, I would think. Unless we commit ourselves to spending the kind of money we spent on Iraq to do fuel reduction.

Hiked up Mt Lola yesterday. Seems like there has been a lot of thinning and brush clearing along that trail. Looked pretty good to this uneducated observer. Disclaimer--I have no experience in fighting fires or doing fire prevention work. I am just parroting what I read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

In the Wilderness, the situation is complicated by the lack of roads, which makes fuel reduction virtually impossible, I would think. Unless we commit ourselves to spending the kind of money we spent on Iraq to do fuel reduction.

---

Funny how they will not let chainsaws into the wilderness, unless a fire is going on :nonono2:

Fighting a fire yesterday at Snow Lake above Cascade Lake in Desolation Wilderness, a team of firefighters was airlifted in with hand tools, chain saws and pumps

Pretty Amazing time lapse video of smoke rolling into Lake Tahoe from the King fire last Saturday from Heavenly Mountains Camera
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLVKUEoMGwI

Any rain falling up there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by telemike

Thanks. We shut down our project for a few days. Too smokey and a bit of rain coming so good time to take a few days off.

---

Stay safe, mang.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by supermodel159

Any rain falling up there?

---

yep, got decent rain yesterday, last night, and today. Friend from Pollock pines sez the AQ has been good. Containment rapidly improved.

Fire right off the freeway in the Applegate/Weimar area: http://yubanet.com/nevada/Applegate.php

The S2s are grounded pending inspection following yesterday's crash in Yose, so that apparently hampered the initial response. They can't stage the bigger tankers out of Grass Valley, so it's either Chico or McClellan.

Report from friend on FB is that a truck was spotted throwing flaming debris onto the roadside at various spots, and that at least one home has been lost already. I have a lot of friends from high school and generally family friends who live in the area being evacuated.

Don't know about winds there, but it's spooky here right now.

Folks described them as "uncooperative." Crap

What is the status of that new fire? Name?

Applegate

http://yubanet.com/nevada/Applegate.php

Bump. Lots of action starting up.

Today there was a fire close enough that i packed a car with photo albums, birth certs, marriage license, back up drives. After the planes were called off, i swept needles off roofs and attached a wrench to the propane tank. The older boy redistributed garden hoses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bodywhomper

Bump. Lots of action starting up.

Today there was a fire close enough that i packed a car with photo albums, birth certs, marriage license, back up drives. After the planes were called off, i swept needles off roofs and attached a wrench to the propane tank. The older boy redistributed garden hoses.

---

Wishing you luck through the fire season. Shit's hitting the fan. And Alaska is burning and sucking up some resources. Might be a long one.

I'd just add that if trees are close enough to your home to drop needles on the roof, you might want to consider some mitigation measures. Like removing the trees, or limbing them at least 10 feet up AND removing nearby trees that could carry a crown fire to the ones adjacent to your house. IOW, build a fire break.

Washington's next. We're in a drought, rivers are running at record low levels, there hasn't been any significant rain in weeks and forecasts for next weekend are calling for dry lightning storms. Hell, there's already a fire burning in the Queets rain forest. Burn baby, burn...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meadow Skipper

Wishing you luck through the fire season. Shit's hitting the fan. And Alaska is burning and sucking up some resources. Might be a long one.

I'd just add that if trees are close enough to your home to drop needles on the roof, you might want to consider some mitigation measures. Like removing the trees, or limbing them at least 10 feet up AND removing nearby trees that could carry a crown fire to the ones adjacent to your house. IOW, build a fire break.

---

Thanks. the needles are from a single large (for the area - over 36" dbh) jeffrey pine. there wasn't that much needle mass on the roof. the tree was limbed by a previous owner to about 30 feet above the roof. we had to demonstrate roof clearance for our insurance when we bought the place last year. we're slowly working through thinning of the understory canopy (small cedars and firs).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bodywhomper

Thanks. the needles are from a single large (for the area - over 36" dbh) jeffrey pine. there wasn't that much needle mass on the roof. the tree was limbed by a previous owner to about 30 feet above the roof. we had to demonstrate roof clearance for our insurance when we bought the place last year. we're slowly working through thinning of the understory canopy (small cedars and firs).

---

Right on. I wasn't trying to be pushy, and it sounds like you're on top of it. I imagine that's an impressive Jeffery to behold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meadow Skipper

...And Alaska is burning and sucking up some resources. Might be a long one.

---

Just to follow up (and because I fought fire based both in Alaska and California), Alaska had a very dry and warm winter (relatively). The report I read this morning said they got 80 new lightning fires and 20 new human caused starts over the last 2 days. That's gonna suck up a lot of jumpers and helicopters and retardant ships. And hotshot crews (there are a lot from the lower 48 ordered up there right now) for the ones that escape initial attack. Firefighting resources might b really, really tight this year.

Here's their lightning map:
http://afsmaps.blm.gov/imf_lightning...site=lightning

I think the entire coast is at risk this year. And the interior right up to the Nechako River system. We had normal mid-elevation snowpacks in the Cariboos this season, but they melted out a month earlier than usual. It's even worse in our more southern ranges. The unit crews have been busy so far this season, and this is supposed to be our monsoon month.

The fishing had been good. This fire has spread faster than herpes on a troop train loaded full of 2 dollar whores.

Attachment 167870

My nephew is up in AK, so sumthing happening.

there were 4 wildfires over the weekend (5, if you include today) w/in 10-20 miles from my house, including one right at the edge of grass valley and empire mine state park (http://yubanet.com/fireuploads/1/tonyp.png). we have the benefit of having one of the calfire tanker airports in town.

that markleeville fire is concerning. there is at least one longtime kirkwood local that several mags know that may be directly effected.

Shit, wishing you luck.

Keep us posted.

Absolutely crazy how brown that golf course in Washington looked during the US open.

Here in Colorado we have had one of the wettest springs / summers on record. Weird weather year. The crappy weather has really sucked, but I would way rather have the rain and green grass than sun and wildfires.

I hope the west gets moisture soon

Last month was the wettest month in US history, nationwide. Weird as shit.

Washington Fire near Markleeville is concerning indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BCMountainHound

I think the entire coast is at risk this year. And the interior right up to the Nechako River system. We had normal mid-elevation snowpacks in the Cariboos this season, but they melted out a month earlier than usual. It's even worse in our more southern ranges. The unit crews have been busy so far this season, and this is supposed to be our monsoon month.

---

I'll be in Celista for the long weekend, fire ban in place yet? Also heard that BC has spent 80% of their fire budget already, scary that August and september are typically the driest and hottest months. BC forests are gonna get fucked.

Hopefully this digression/threadjacking is cool, but what happens elsewhere will affect California, and Alaska's getting hammered right now. Yesterday's situation report listed 56 new fires just for the day, and 236 ongoing. A certain number of them will be limited (or no) response, but the smoke and drain on resources will be severe.

Inciweb says the Washington fire near Markleeville isn't running hard, just short crowning runs.

Just wait until the lakers win next year!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by digitaldeath

Just wait until the lakers win next year!

---

Hah. I laughed.

Also, that would be sweet. Won't happen though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gcooker

I'll be in Celista for the long weekend, fire ban in place yet? Also heard that BC has spent 80% of their fire budget already, scary that August and september are typically the driest and hottest months. BC forests are gonna get fucked.

---

Currently no campfire bans anywhere in the province. Open fires (burning barrels, industrial or agricultural, etc) are currently only permitted in the PG and Northwest fire centres. Given the state of affairs, though, I highly suspect that there will be campfire bans in place for the July 1st holiday. Not sure how it will roll out with the 1st being mid-week however. Check the website closer to the date, they usually give a day or two notice: http://bcwildfire.ca/hprscripts/wildfirenews/bans.asp Remember that incorporated municipalities and many private campsites may have different restrictions in place, depending on their own available resources and perceived levels of risk.

I hear the market for the newer propane-fuelled 'campfires' is quite hot right now, however.